"Hornby King review"

This is a little different from the norm on this blog! Instead of locomotives from the Late and Never Early Railway (L.N.E.R.) we see one from the Gresley Was Right line, or as we really know it, the Great Western Railway. 

Hornby's King class model has been a few years in the making and replaces the older, tender drive era model of years past. Announced on Facebook (a first for the company?) a few years previously, I'm a little behind the curve with the production batches of Hornby's King, but when 6011 King James I became available in thislivery, I knew I needed to look into this model towards my own model railway.

For one King ran on the Eastern Region during the 1948 exchange trials, and the intention is to run one such model together with my model of the LNER's Dynamometer car.

I've borrowed a few books, drawings and looked at photographs closely for this review. I've really gone above and beyond for the research stage of this review, because there will be at some point two ready to run King models from two sources (Hornby and DJ Models/Hattons) and I want to be sure of any facts or figures before giving my personal view on which is better.

There's a lot of debate on the online forums about a number of the detail parts fitted, including and not limited to the superheater headers, questions about the livery including and not limited to the route indicator discs on the cabs. On this particular model I believe it should have the red discs on the cab sides, however I'll leave that to more knowledgeable people: though I have enjoyed very much trying to work out what I need to do for my chosen locomotive, King Henry VI.

So how much do I really need to do? The answer is: not a lot. I need to change the branding on the tender, primarily, add some wiring for the Dynamometer car to the rear, weather it, add appropriate lamps, real coal and so on and so forth.

Changing the nameplates and numbers is going to be a literal doddle compared with what I am used to! The superheater header appears to be on the correct side too which is a relief. I don't need to change the steam pipes either. So far, so good.

I've never been much of a Great Western fan before, but the King really does have a presence all its own. There's little things, like the coupling rods and slide bar brackets that are much better designed and much bulkier than older offerings (which not so long ago were plastic in the mid 90s, with the older tender drive derived King).

There are sprung buffers all around. The new arrangement for the front bogie is a significant improvement on models past. The front bogie itself is very nicely done and has both a weight and look that makes it look as heavy duty as the real thing, older models tending to look like they had skateboards attached at the front end.

The levers to the inside valve gear is modelled for the first time and is very convincing.

The overall face of the machine, and all major dimensions, seem spot on. The buffer beam detail is surprisingly fine and I did have to look twice at photographs of the real thing to compare. The cab detail is excellent. I cannot believe how good the water gauges are on this model.

I know it's a really rarely seen bit of any model, but on Great Western engines which tender to have more open cabs (like the City class) it is something you see quite clearly. I wouldn't call the King footplate "exposed" but with that tender design, unlike my LNER locomotives, the cab can be seen much more. It adds that extra layer of realism to the model and lifts it higher in my view.

The tender seems to match all of the various drawings and photographs I have amassed for my chosen locomotive. The livery application throughout is just exquisite. The lining out on the frames in particular are very fine. hough I am unsure at this stage of the colour of the dome. It looks a bit too...I don't know, lemon-y, as opposed to a shiny metallic colour.

That was one of the things I always admired on the older king models, the metalwork did look like the metal it was supposed to be (brass or copper). They are meant to shine, after all, and here the matt finish doesn't really look the part for me. This is a very minor point, I hasten to add.

There's just one other problem with the model, for me anyway, and again it's about the choice of the colours used. It's the shade of the colour green. I've taken photographs of the model in every light source imaginable, I've um'd, ah'd and procrastinated over it but the truth of the matter is that the Great Western Railway green used is wrong. It is far, far too light and lacking in the deepness of colour that the real thing has.

The truly odd thing is that this shade seems to match the same paint that Hornby were putting on their open cab Pannier Tank locomotives some ten years ago, and it looked odd back then too. It also matches that on the recent Hall and Star models, neither of which in their GWR liveries looked the part to me.

Is this a huge deal? No, it's not a deal breaker. Yes, it does offend my particular brand of obsessive compulsive perfectionism in railway models, and yes I do think my King could potentially benefit from either weathering or a complete strip and repaint. Is it so bad that you shouldn't buy the model if you need a King? I don't believe so. It annoys my eyes but not to the extent that I couldn't put up with it in some form.

Can Hornby do better with the colours? Undoubtedly, it just takes some of us to be constructive and polite when asking them to do better next time. The green needs to be better. That's pretty much the full extent of the problems with Hornby's Kings. That's not bad frankly and shows just how far Hornby have come with their models of the Kings.

And to be frank: I have managed to make one of my Hornby B17s in the BR dark green look more accurate with careful use of T-Cut and a cotton bud, and a coat of Johnson's Klear floor polish afterwards. So I don't believe it is beyond my scope to potentially improve my King model with a little modelling...

The King has the presence, the power and the detail to be a contender for one of Hornby's best models in their range. Put a better livery finish on it and it is elevated to one of the best models they've ever produced.

The running qualities were unbelievable when I ran it in at the Erith Model Railway Club. I cannot stress enough how impressed everyone was. It was quiet, smooth and powerful, taking on 13 Bachmann Mk1 coaches with ease, no mean feat. This wasn't on the level either so there's no doubting the performance.

If I had one criticism of the running quality, I felt the front bogie looked like it wiggled somewhat as it ran. I later discovered the back to backs on the wheels were out, and having sorted this I feel it runs more smoothly.

When the DJ Models/Hattons designed King emerges it'll be interesting to compare and contrast these releases. In my view I think Hornby has pretty much nailed the King, giving Great Western fans an express locomotive with the looks and performance they've missed out on for some time. We LNER fans have been pretty lucky with all of our ducks (ha ha) lined up in the form of the A4 and A3 for some time: and we are set to get another stunner next month in the form of Hornby's B12.

Truly a golden era for Hornby's research and development team, and a welcome recent announcement from Hornby about looking into how they interact with their retailers. A great development which I hope will result in a number of our most cherished model shops getting things back on track. All parties need a win in this difficult post Brexit economic climate and I am encouraged by the rumblings at Hornby.

"Oxford Rail LNER Cattle Wagon review"

I've been looking forward to the release of Oxford Rail's cattle wagon for some time, and had intended to write a review of it: however this blog also looks a little at why the Oxford Rail cattle wagon has taken a bit of a beating in the model railway press recently, and particularly on forums, and whether it is fair.

To caveat this I have to say that this is probably the first time in a long time that I have to switch allegiances in a debate and head over to the side of "are we modellers or not?" from my long standing consumer orientated part of the debate.

Normally if a model wasn't quite there in terms of accuracy I'd lament this - and there are indeed a couple of lamentable design choices on this model - but that does not in any way, shape or form, detract from what is in the main an excellent model of a very specific diagram wagon.

Oxford Rail's LNER liveried cattle wagon (1927 built version)

http://www.oxfordrail.com/76/OR76CAT.htm

It's so specific, you can find a photograph of it on page 291 of An Illustrated History of LNER Wagons. It's a diagram 39, 10 ton cattle wagon, built at Doncaster in 1927. It's the 9ft wheelbase version and there is an elevation drawing on page 293 of the same volume. For anyone so interested, on the same page is a a photograph of an unfitted version of the same diagram wagon.

Minor modifications to Oxford Rail's model, including removing the vacuum pipes will produce the unfitted wagon.

Oxford Rail's British Railways liveried cattle wagon (1949 applied livery)

In fact, one could argue quite reasonably that Oxford Rail have made a model which is somewhere between its fitted and unfitted variants! The main point of contention is the missing vacuum cylinder, which should be located where the Oxford Rail branding is on the underside of the chassis. A white metal replacement or some plastic tubing will effectively finish the model off if you want the fitted version, removing the brake pipes will make the unfitted version.

Looking closely at the photographs in this volume and elsewhere, I think on the balance of probability that Oxford Rail were actually intending to reproduce a very similar wagon to that seen on page 292 of this volume, particularly if you look at the sole bar and note that the "9ft wheelbase" is missing on the right hand side as you look at each side of the wagon.

It has one glaring error. It's effectively used the same CAD for both sides of the wagon. These wagons had adjustable partitions and as such the partition notches (noticeable in the planks on the left hand side of both sides of the wagon) should be mirrored left to right sides, not mirrored across the diagonal of the wagon, effectively!

I am in two minds about this inaccuracy. You can't see both sides of the wagon at the same time so this error is only obvious if you turn the wagon around in your hand. Secondly - no partitions have actually been fitted, so this would only cause a problem if you were going to put cattle in your cattle wagon and also fit additional detailing such as said partition. For weathering and putting to run on your layout, is this really as big a deal as people have made out?

And who says you can't fix it by adding the gap between the planks, and the notches, using a small dremel cutting tool and a scalpel, and then using plasticard and filler to fill in the offending end the other side?

So cards on the table time: this is a tooling with two big errors/omissions (vacuum cylinder, partition notches) which is otherwise very accurate for the 1927 built, diagram 39 fitted 9ft wheelbase LNER cattle wagon. Phew, what a mouthful! It's missing the vacuum cylinder and it has some issues with the sides, but other than that it is highly accurate in all major dimensions, details and overall livery application and is available for a whisker over £10.

Hornby's cattle wagon for comparison 

(their newly tooled Southern Region one is out later in the year)

Now I'm not being funny, but given I've deliberately included samples of two of the main competitors (Hornby's older cattle wagon isn't currently available, but an all new Southern diagram cattle wagon is due to join their range later in the year) to Oxford Rail's new cattle wagon in this review, and noted their prices, the clamour to condemn, berate and bemoan the Oxford Rail model in a number of locations on the internet is in my view a total disgrace.

Bachmann's Cattle Wagon for comparison

It's the cheapest of the three main cattle wagon models available, and it's the only one which is close to reproducing the diagram it purports to represent. Bachmann's model is derived from the short Mainline LMS cattle wagon, Dapol's GWR inspired one is over lumpy, with very coarse detailing and to be brutally honest, given the number of times both samples derailed on straight sections of track (never mind the curves or points!) possibly the worst running ready to run wagons I've ever come across. £10 for the Oxford Rail model is an absolute bargain.

Dapol's cattle wagon for comparison

Much of the criticism for the Oxford Rail model has come from the recognition that the BR liveried one is unlikely. Except it isn't, because on page 291 of the volume I'm referring to, low and behold there is a 9ft wheelbase LNER cattle wagon in the same livery as Oxford Rail's! Where the criticism is valid (and this is key) is that Oxford have only tooled up one version of the cattle wagon, and that is the one which represents the 1927 as built and probably pristine wagon, without any of the later additions such as the additional bracing and strapping applied to keep the wagons in good order that can be seen in photographs of BR or late LNER era wagons.

So they've only tooled it up for one period and applied different era liveries to it. Big deal! They're not the first to do this, nor I suspect will they be the last to do so. All of the model railway manufacturers who've produced wagons have done this and some extremely spurious liveries exist mostly centring on five or six plank open wagons...

I'm genuinely mystified by the response by normally well respected LNER modellers as well. There's one in particular who berated Hornby for not producing the LNER Q6 in pre-war livery who is now complaining because Oxford have produced their wagon in pre-war form and livery!

This model is the best LNER cattle wagon produced ready to run. It's also the first and only one to a specific and recognisable diagram, in a recognisable livery and with only minor modifications (as far as I am concerned!) to make it an excellent model.

I'd read people's views across a number of forums and I was pretty surprised at what I was reading. This was prior to doing any research. One contributor in particular had picked out "about 30 errors".

It's a pity that, on closer observation, his "30 errors" are limited to the British Railways liveried model - that number gets reduced to around two or three when you look specifically at the LNER liveried model and think of this model has having been designed in the context of the 1927 diagram 39 wagon.

Should Oxford have made the 10ft wheelbase cattle wagon instead? Probably, it would have given them greater coverage for liveries and it was the more numerous wagon. Does it make enough of a difference for an LNER modeller to not buy this model? Probably not either. What about other region modellers?

These cattle wagons, though comparatively rare throughout their years in comparison to either LMS or Southern and later BR variants, will look a good addition to a mixed goods train. Let's face it, the big four's wagons got around. Okay, it's unlikely to have made it to deepest, darkest Wales or Cornwall but up the Midlands and the North of England, to the east of England and Scotland? Possibly. It has potential.

I know I need the 10ft wheelbase as a post war LNER modeller. This 9ft wheelbase model is a great starting point for making that wagon type. There's a very enterprising modeller on one of the forums who, I am told, has converted Oxford Rail's model into one of these already. More power to his elbow. Excellent work.

For the rest of us who want a cattle wagon that looks the part and has the modelling potential, this is it. The release of the century for LNER modellers. A gift horse (or should that be cow?) we shouldn't be looking in the mouth, unless it's to improve its lot.

I'm all for criticism where it is due. I feel this model has had a lot of unnecessary criticism. But at that price point, with the very nicely moulded body, and options available to me to make it better and do some modelling, I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. Especially not when it's the best model for my needs, and I suspect for the vast majority of LNER modellers up and down the country.

I leave you with a short video. You make up your mind as to which of the six wagons in the train you think looks the part. The emphasis is mainly on the Oxford Rail model of course, but compare the Bachmann and Dapol models and their prices to this one and have a think if ignoring the Oxford Rail model is really sensible consumerism as well as sensible LNER modelling.

"Hornby Raven Q6 review: a northern beauty"

It's with great pleasure that I present for the first time on this blog a locomotive class which isn't part of my overall modelling plans. I had no intention of buying a Hornby Raven Q6, and yet I now find myself besotted with the original and having ordered another, with both destined to become Tyne Dock examples in due course. So how did we get here?

That's one question. Perhaps a better one is why didn't we get here earlier? In the North of England there are many beautifully industrial railways with steam locomotives of various vintages that ran to the end of  steam. The Raven Q6 is one of those, and luckily for us, one is preserved and currently running on the North Yorkshire Moors Railways.

There were some people who wondered if we'd ever actually get here in modelling terms. A specifically North of England steam locomotive made by a major manufacturer for the mass market. It's all well and good throwing in the odd elderly Shire class, or a Scottish liveried Black Five, or a Robinson D11 with a slightly different chimney and cab roof, but it doesn't escape the fact that for the North of England, and specifically the North East of England, model railways have been severely lacking in products, excitement and general all round recognition that the region exists.

Hornby and Bachmann have produced some buildings in their Skaledale and Scenecraft ranges (including specifically North Eastern style sheds, water towers, signal boxes and even Goathland station).

It is made even more strange when you consider that the North Eastern Railway (NER) in particular was one of the major components of what has been Hornby's money maker for some years: the London & North Eastern Railway (LNER). Sir Vincent Raven's designs built for the NER varied hugely from humble tank engines, fast Atlantics to the somewhat unwieldy Pacifics and the beautifully rugged freight engines. It's in this bracket that we find Hornby's latest steam outline model, the Raven Q6, answering the prays of many people who've hankered for a steam locomotive with that North Eastern pedigree.

Of course, it could have all been very different. There was also a "crowd funded" model mooted by DJ Models a few years back. Happily for modellers there's been no duplication this time around, and the Hornby model was pushed ahead for release in 2016.

Let's face it, when it comes to steam locomotives and particularly ex-LNER steam locomotives, Hornby has a track record by far and away better than anyone else in the market. Bachmann has come very close with a few of its models, most recently the Ivatt Atlantic, but Hornby's Thompson L1, B1, Gresley B17 and most recently the Worsdell J15 and Gresley J50 are on another level to everything else. They led the way with revamped models of the Gresley A3 and A4, and the rest followed. Truly, if you follow the LNER, now is the time to be a 4mm scale modeller. You will never be able to have it as good as it is right now.

Heljan recently released a model of the Gresley O2 fright engine at an entirely comparable price to Hornby's Q6. It however doesn't measure up very well by comparison, I am afraid to say. If you need a Gresley O2, this is the only game in town. It has a number of features which I personally do not like, and objectively speaking its overall finish is not particularly fine when compared to many of its excellent diesel electric locomotives (I cite Falcon and Kestrel - both beautiful models).

Given the Hornby Q6 has a similar wheelbase, overall size and is being sold at a similar price point makes it in my opinion a reasonable comparison of models.

But there is no comparison. Objectively speaking there is an incredible gulf between the two models. In almost every way possible, the Hornby Q6 is the superior model, even accounting for some potential detail errors (lack of capuchon, mechanical lubricator, etc). The fit, finish and running qualities of the Q6 just by far out strip any other steam outline model out there.

For this review, I conducted some running in trials of the Q6 on 29 June 2016 and everyone at ERMS (Erith Model Railway Society) who examined the model was taken with it. But we were blown away by how incredibly quiet and competent the chassis is, without any modification. By contrast, my Heljan O2 runs extremely poorly and is much louder. I have previously been forwarded some screenshots of work done by others on the internet to improve their Gresley O2s and to me it's an excellent starting point for some modelling.

But the Hornby Q6 is better value for money. Less modifications need to be done, if any, to make it look like a proper LNER workhorse. It has a better motor and gearbox arrangement, separately fitted lamp irons, metal handrails and handrail knobs (Heljan's O2 has hideous plastic ones which look and feel cheap), sprung buffers and a plethora of other separately fitted details.

By comparison, Heljan's O2 has mismatching tender handrails, poorly designed outside valve gear, an incredibly misshapen chimney and a less than smooth drive in either forwards or reverse running. I feel like I could trust the quality control of Hornby implicitly with this release, which I can't say with Heljan's O2. The Hornby Q6 hasn't got the double fly wheel drive of the Worsdell J15, but it doesn't need it either.

Bear in mind, I have always previously praised Heljan for their excellent mechanisms and it is regrettable that such a high profile new release falls down in what is normally their strongest area (if we accept of course, some notable problem models such as the Clayton. Art imitating life more than we'd like!)

So does the Hornby Q6 measure up for accuracy to prototype? You bet it does. Surprisingly, this is a model which Hornby haven't laser scanned, preferring to climb all over the real thing and measure it up traditionally.  Which I approve of wholeheartedly as you may find things which you don't get from a laser scanning device (a useful tool undoubtedly - but not infallible).

This means that in real terms, the Hornby Q6 model compares very favourably to scale drawings and photographs of the real thing. This model - like all in the first batch - carries a diagram 50A boiler (the later type fitted by the LNER) and a chimney without a "windjabber" or "capuchon".

It also has the mechanical lubricator fitted to the right hand side, and does not have a sandwich buffer beam fitted. It is in late LNER livery, with the plain yellow Gill Sans lettering and numbering that Edward Thompson introduced when chief mechanical engineer of the LNER.

The detail in the cab is absolutely bonkers: the boiler back head is possibly the most realistic and detailed I have seen on any steam outline model. It is extremely fine, and really only needs some weathering and a crew to complete the look.

If I have one criticism of the design of the model, it is that the tender is very light and possibly prone to derailing as a result. I have not however in eight hours of running this model encountered a single time that the model's tender derailed. So this criticism may in fact be unfair. It is easily fixed by adding real coal or liquid lead when the moulded plastic coal is removed to add weight.

There's a few other nit picky details I need to get out of the way at this point. Bear in mind, I'm an LNER modeller and as such I, and others like me, are going to be looking closely at these models for modelling purposes, and we may find more fault than others because we know what we're looking for.

(But I caveat that with fully accepting the Q6 isn't my normal fare and I have relied on my friends who have looked after the real thing to point me in the right direction of prototype photographs and film online).

Firstly, I'm pretty sure looking at the photographs I've collated that this Q6 (3418) should have a capuchon on the chimney. However when I asked Hornby about this, they replied that on this particular locomotive, they had evidence the capuchon had been corroded away and had taken the decision not to model it as a result.

It's a fair response in my view. In my time rustling through books (RCTS, Yeadon's, a few books on the North of England railways and my late grandfather's photo collection) there's a few photographs to suggest that the capuchon was damaged regularly on Q6s. Whether that justifies not modelling the capuchon on this locomotive, when they have such a chimney tooled up on the British Railway liveried models, is up to you.

Secondly, the mechanical lubricator. The RCTS (Railway Correspondence and Travel Society) series of books indicates that the type fitted to this model was post 1949, which is British Railways days. I've looked at photographs and I believe it's not wrong for a 1946 era Q6 to have this type of lubricator. However whether it is correct for 3418 is another matter. I simply don't know - I haven't as yet found a photograph of 3418 herself.

Then there's the smokebox door. On some forums there's been doubt about whether it should have been this type of smokebox door or the larger, more bulbous later one as fitted to the British Railway versions. Happily I've found a large number of 1946-49 era Q6s in photographs fitted with this door, so I am content to say it's most likely accurate, if not for 3418 then at the very least for a classmate in this period.

The numbering and lettering on this version looks a smidgeon anaemic to me. However the colour and shape of them looks accurate. That is the most minor point possible.

The biggest criticism of this model I have seen is that as an LNER liveried model it doesn't represent the largest period possible as it has a diagram 50A boiler and not a diagram 50 boiler which has many different details including, but not limited to, washout plugs, safety valves, dome placement, and so on and so forth...

This is a fair criticism if what you expected was a pre-war Q6, but Hornby haven't sold it as such. It's definitely post war and its condition reflects that. In order for Hornby to model a fully pre-war Q6, it also requires tail rods to the cylinders, possibly a sandwich buffer beam, original NER buffers (and not the square based group standard ones fitted) amongst other minor details.

I asked Hornby if they were going to produce this type, and they stated a pre-war version with the 50A boiler type is definitely being on the cards. I suspect (and this is my view, not one Hornby have offered) that an LNER liveried Q6 was always going to be needed for the first batch, but to maximise the tooling available a post war one was easier to produce than a pre-war one. There's nothing wrong with that intrinsically, but if you model the LNER 1923-46 then this Q6 isn't accurate.

That takes nothing away from what is the model of the year, for me at any rate. I've never known a model to look so comfortable pulling a train or be so quiet and smooth when doing so. The chassis is a testament to Hornby's current design ethos, and the sharpness and accuracy of the body shell a testament to Hornby's tool makers.

For me, Hornby are at the top of their game once again. The excellence of the K1 and J15 last year have continued into 2016 with the superb Q6.

Of course this is all set against the current backdrop of Hornby as a company being in dire straits. The situation is grave. 

All I can do, as a railway modeller who understands the value of Hornby as a company, is encourage those closet North Eastern modellers to buy the Q6s and the 21 ton hoppers in spades. They are both excellent models, and no doubt this won't be the last Darlington built model to be released by Hornby in the future.

For the sake of the hobby, we need Hornby to survive. We can do this by helping them to understand when they get it wrong - and by supporting and praising them when they get it right, like any other manufacturer.

At the end of the day, I'm not paid to write these reviews and I have absolutely no interest in mincing my words. I've previously always been very forthcoming with constructive criticism where it was required - see Hornby's Great Western heavy tanks or their Duke of Gloucester models to name but two that felt the wrath of my keyboard - but equally we've got to praise and support them when they get it right, because it's to the advantage of all of us in the hobby that Hornby as an entity survive.

I don't normally give scores on this blog, but if I was to give a score out of ten, this would be a nine: not perfect, for like any model there are people like me and more knowledgable than me who will know a few details are wrong, here and there. But the overall quality of the product and its performance by far out strip any other steam outline model on sale today.

Well done Hornby, sincerely, and gratefully.

"Gresley streamlined P2 - further updates"

Some time ago I started work on modifying one of Hornby's Railroad P2 locomotives into a streamlined variant. The identity of this engine has been picked, but it won't be immediately obvious which P2 it is.

Today I've been mostly concerned with adding handrails, the lubricators and generally tidying up the cuts made in the body shell to fit the A4 front end. It's nowhere near a patch on Graeme King's excellent P2 conversion (which you can find on the LNER forum) but it serves.

For anyone interested, I've used Bachmann V2 valve gear, virtually unmodified, using the same Hornby hexagonal screw to fit the valve gear on as is used on the normal Caprotti valve gear normally found on the base model.

As you may have guessed, my model will be wartime black once all of the modifications are done.

Until next time...

"Hornby and the model railway media"

Unless you've been sat under a rock today, you'll know that Hornby have announced a profits warning. Read on this here.

It makes for sobering reading, amidst the back drop of what I believed to an entirely positive 2015 for the company, particularly in terms of the models it was producing.

The magnificent Peppercorn K1, the J15, the Goods Arthur, the Great Western King, the Gresley J50, announcing the new Merchant Navy, a plethora of wonderful carriages and wagons alike: this was not the design of a company on the way down but one very much on the way up.

I've been privileged to share my knowledge over the course of the last few months with a couple of individuals and they've been good enough to allow me into their confidence. I say this not to show off, as others might, but because I feel it is important to give both sides of the story: and that is I feel Hornby are going in a very positive direction in their Research & Development, and I am anxious that this isn't scuppered or spoiled for a ha'porth of tar, so to speak.

I don't feel it is giving anything away to say that Hornby have surprised us all, and will continue to surprise us, with their planned new products into the future. I have been very impressed by the openness of Hornby in many ways, and I feel their approach to their Research & Development is spot on. They have the hobby, the modeller and the beginner's best interests very much at heart, in my view, and I don't say that lightly. It is not something I believe is true of all other manufacturers.

It is clear, on the flip side, that their sales and in particular with their retailers, have been a most commanding influence in the profits warning issued today. I have said previously that I feel Hornby need to have a round the table discussion with their retailers to improve the situation all round: here is my offer to act as an impartial adjudicator for all, representing no sides but helping everyone be heard and look for a solution to the problems which my local retailers and Hornby are finding increasingly difficult to cope with.

I make that offer in the spirit of wanting to help: and after all, I am a financial adjudicator in my day job. It is something I am particularly good at: researching, and then analysing both sides of a particular story and then offering a practical solution designed to help both sides move forward.

So there you have it. Yes, it is disappointing news today, but let this be where the line is drawn, and we go no further. Constructive rather than destructive going forward. Being critical and able to analyse is fine, but Hornby could rightly be described as the backbone of the hobby and certainly it is the entry point for many of the younger generation. Let's not lose sight of that.

"Model trains and their reviews: time for a shake up?"

Now that Warley is almost over, and the big announcements of the year are out of the way, I feel I can post freely again on my own blog and ask a few questions of the hobby.

In the last week, you may have noticed an email published on MREmag. You can find that email here, but here's a full transcript of the email (which was published unedited).

Kernow 02

The stories and reports circulating around the Kernow commissioned O2 model are getting more and more curious. One video in particular has been circulated around and this is the one by Andy York from RMweb which was posted on YouTube showing a Kernow O2 running with a train of coaches.

 

The train of coaches are the older type of Hornby's Gresley LNER corridor coaches (most recently used by Hornby as part of the basis for their Railroad range, and still in production to date).

I can see that all of the coaches used in the video match the types I already have in my collection. Therefore it follows that the coaches I have should be reasonably identical to those the O2 pulled in the video, and therefore reasonably representative of the same train Mr York put together for the Kernow O2. These are all moulded plastic coaches, made in a small number of clip together parts, which originally came with plastic wheelsets (but for a time turned metal wheelsets before a return to plastic wheelsets for the Railroad range).

I have weighed my own coaches and they range from 90g to 100g (the former a composite and the latter a brake third). Therefore on the basis that we take the lowest possible coach weight, and the highest, we could make some reasonable assumptions of the train weight in the video.

If we extrapolate the information that Mr York has provided for the train lengths he put his sample O2 to work on, and assume that his test trains comprised these type of model coaches only (as shown in the short video), we get the following representative train weights:

• 6 coach train: low = 540g and high = 600g
• 7 coach train: low =650g and high = 700g
• 8 coach train: low =740g and high = 800g

I also have in my possession samples of Hornby's more modern Gresley teak coaches. These are far closer in weight and detail to the coaches a modeller would most likely run behind his Kernow O2 (the forthcoming Gate stock, for example, has little in common with the Railroad Teak coaches that we have seen the O2 pull). My sample coaches of this type weighed in at 120g and 125g for a composite and a brake third coach.

So, using some reasonable assumptions, based on the same assumptions above, we get these potential train weights for a more detailed and more likely sample train:

• 6 coach train: low = 720g and high = 750g
• 7 coach train: low = 840g and high = 965g
• 8 coach train: low = 960g and high = 1090g

You can see that even accounting for the lowest possible and highest possible sample weights, there is a huge discrepancy in the potential train weights between the older, much simpler and lighter construction LNER Gresley coaches and the newer, more modern and detailed, heavier equivalents. The 6 coach Railroad rake could be as low as 540g and as high as 600g, but a more likely, detailed rake could be as low as 720g (or to put it another way, another coach heavier) and as high as 750g. Taking into account the heavier coaches the weight differences get bigger.

Now, we all know that the vast majority of these O2s being bought are unlikely to be pulling trains of this length. That's a given, we all accept this. The longest trains on the Isle of Wight were around 6 coaches, I am reliably informed. So in the interests of balance, you could say that the train weights above are irrelevant, because they're not going to be pulling anywhere near the like on a daily basis. Fair enough, as long as we're all agreed on this.

However you will agree with me, I hope, that such a defence of a model's performance will have viewers asking why this was necessary. There are reports a plenty on the Internet regarding the performance of the O2 and Chris Leigh of Model Rail also raised this as an issue. Bearing that in mind, I have to question the validity of the video produced in regards to the performance of the O2 on that basis.

Pulling a train of these extremely light weight coaches is not proof of the potential performance of this sample model with more likely rolling stock. Furthermore, there's no video to show the locomotive starting the train and/or stopping it and then starting it again, so we have no frame of reference to the model's overall potential performance here either.

I would hope Chris Terise - who I know as a very reasonable chap - would be able to take any constructive criticism on the chin if it should arise for any of the products he markets. The O2 model looks lovely and has a wealth of detail. That is not in doubt. That it is being sold at a competitive price and comparable to other similarly sized and detail models is also not in doubt.

But is such a video as that shown above really in the best interests of Kernow? I remain sceptical. Muddying the waters further with such productions does not help the case of those defending the models' potential performances. It raises more questions than answers.

I would be interested in the thoughts of other readers to MREmag. What constitutes a reasonable test for the model railway media to show the performances or otherwise of a model locomotive? It could be suggested that across the board in the model railway media, there is no clear objective way of showing this as yet.

Simon A.C. Martin

I'd like to express at this point that there was, is, and will always remain the fair point here about consistency of message and what constitutes a fair and consistent test of model train haulage. That was my sole purpose for writing the email. Nothing more, nothing less. 

The response from the editor was interesting and goes as follows:

Editor: Perhaps I can clear this up a little since I was the one who set the train up and drove the loco, and presumably should also be in the same firing line for the attacks in this letter.

There have been many people saying that the 02 isn't the strongest loco in the world so as Andy was doing a photo shoot at the Leamington clubrooms, while we waited for the layout to be set up, the opportunity was taken to test Andy's own model with some coaches available on a continuous run layout.

The first set available were the old Hornby LNER set so that's what we used. I simply hooked the model to the entire set and gave it a run. The model pulled them perfectly well but stuggled a bit more when hanging more on the back.

You are correct that all it proves is that an O2 will haul 6 light coaches around a layout. That's all it was intended to show. It was not "necessary", the video was shot for fun. There are no extra questions, the video is what it is.

In no way was it intended to be the comprehensive test you are making it out to be, if it had been we'd have put some numbers of drawbar pull on the model and considered rolling resistance of the stock - far more relevant than the overall weight. We'd also have put more effort into the filming than simply pointing a mobile phone at the train.

Perhaps we all need to stop having fun. Perhaps all discussion should be passed through a committee of "the great and good" before it is allowed to be released to everyone else. Or perhaps if anyone else had shot this video, and I'm sure the are plenty of other films showing O2's running on the Internet, these comments wouldn't have been made.

I have said before, MREmag is not the place to come if you just want to take potshots at other forums, no matter how veiled. There are plenty of other sites for this, we'll stick to talking about railways.

I won't legitimise the viewpoint suggested that my email was in any way about taking potshots at other forums: because that would infer that I regard any other railway forums as fair and balanced places to discuss model trains, and that I in any way care for their way of doing things. No, I'm afraid that was quite far off the mark this time!

That video was originally posted - I am told - as a direct response to complaints about the haulage capacity of the Kernow O2. It was made to show that it performs on the track. I'm happy with that: it's a legitimate response but my point was that the model railway media can - and really should have done by now - some research into what constitutes a fair and reasonable test of a model's abilities.

There is no standard across the board in the model railway media in terms of reviewing model trains. There are no clear ways to define the ability of a model nor any clear way of defining how prototypically correct it is or whether its finish can be considered fine, heavy or whatever. There just isn't any clear guidance or thought into what consumers need to make informed decisions on their purchases.

I've tried before when making videos for YouTube. The following video is a little old now, certainly very dated, but it and the other review videos I made followed a format and they were fair and consistent across each video.

This to me is the fundamental issue. Consistency. If reviews in the model railway media were fair and consistent in their appraisal, then naturally you wouldn't get accusations of collusion every so often and complaints that they don't go into enough detail. If you had agreed tests for performance (such as a weight test for haulage, speed trap test to show a model's gearing) then you're not going to be pulled up for treating models from different manufacturers differently: it would be a level playing field for reviews, and you'd be more fair and impartial as a result.

For me, it's not good enough - as it seems to be the case elsewhere on the net - to be seen to be impartial. It's about actually being mature enough to know that you have to be impartial, because it's the right thing to do for all parties.

Chris Leigh recently wrote a review for the Kernow O2 for Model Rail Magazine and was pilloried for it across the internet. 

I have read the review and can't get my head around the response. 

It was one of the most fair, balanced and constructive reviews I've ever read. I can only conclude that because it was a commissioned product, and that many people seem to have had their hearts set on the model, that Chris' review was attacked because the truth is sometimes difficult to hear, or because there's something more sinister going on.

There's something of a cult of personality about the model railway media at the moment, and one wonders how long this will go on. Hornby took the unusual step this year to ramp up their own marketing and communication direct with their consumers. I have praised this previously, and will continue to do so because by opening up their lines of communication direct to their consumers, they're getting the actual story and not a potentially edited one. 

People can be - and are - more honest on Facebook, Twitter, and similar than on model railway forums because they only have to justify their view to Hornby and remain accountable to themselves.

 In my day job I am expected to take both sides of the story from two parties with a dispute, and make a decision based on the evidence available which is fair and reasonable to both parties. It's not enough for the decision to feel vaguely fair: it has to be fair. My test of fairness has been tested a lot over the last few years with model railways, and when all is said and done I have observed some woefully inaccurate and unfair commentary from those who are in positions of authority and should know better.

I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me in terms of model railways: anyone who has met me knows what I am about and that I do not care for politics. I'm one man, acting alone, so you'll always know on this blog that what I am writing are my own views.

If you are reading this blog and feel that I've picked on you in the past - perhaps you're a manufacturer, or a reader, or someone somewhere who has taken offence to something I've said - maybe the question to ask on reflection is: did I make a good point - and was it fair and right to raise it?

If you can say yes, then I've done my job and I can rest easy. 

For my regular readers, a side note. I apologise for the lack of updates this year. I had no idea how 2015 was going to go. It's been both amazing and heartbreaking; terrifying and exciting. I love my chosen career and I am working hard to become the best adjudicator I can be. I take my role seriously because it lines up with my core values: hearing both sides of the story and bringing balance to a debate.

Thanks for reading today: there'll be a Christmas update on The British Railway Stories and a few modelling bits and pieces, but that's mostly it for 2015 now. Roll on 2016 when normal service can be resumed in earnest.

Particularly as the boards are finished for my model railway and the track is finally laid! I hope to be running test trains and starting the full scenic work in the new year.

Until next time,

Simon

"BRWS Ltd Update #9: Thompson's only design memorial"

One of the things that I find wonderful about this hobby is the research. You can turn up many interesting combinations of locomotive name, number and form. 

A case in point: Thompson's B1s. Built by Darlington, Gorton and North British, they all had some detail differences including smokebox rivets, style of and placement of works plates and the smokebox door type.

Bachmann's latest, unnamed, apple green Thompson B1 no.1123 was the subject for my latest round of modelling. Having purchased a number of these at a knock down price, I went through my preferred books for research on the class. The Power of the B1s, Yeadon's Register and the RCTS' LNER volume 2B all featuring some interesting prototypes.

I had already made a model of class pioneer Springbok and two more of the deer namers caught my eye for different reasons. 

B1 no.1039 was featured in Yeadon's Register with an unusual difference to its classmates. The photograph in the book shows it coupled to one of the ex-Raven/Gresley Atlantic six wheel tenders. These tenders were a close, if not perfect match for a V2's group standard tender. Since I had a number of these spare, I took the opportunity to remove the shaded LNER lettering using some water and a glass fibre pen, and add Gill Sans plain lettering instead. The base model's tender will go to another Thompson related project in due course.

1039 had electric lighting, but the base model does not. I removed the lamp irons and used some bits from a spare Replica Railways B1 body shell that did have the electric lighting fitted. It's not a perfect match for the original style Thompson lighting system but it'll do in terms of representation. Some wire was added to the right hand side of the boiler and fitted next to the stones generator on the running plate, also taken from a spare Replica B1 body shell.

The original chimney was cut off, and the smokebox filed down, for a brass cast Gibson's B1 chimney with a much nicer profile to be fitted. Superglue of the semi-quick drying kind was used to allow some time to fiddle around and make sure it was fitted properly. Fox Transfers provided the nameplates and works plates for this model and these were duly added using the same process.

One modification I have made to all of my Bachmann B1s is to remove the original, large, plastic coupling bar from the tenders. I use Hornby's Railroad Scotsman metal drawbar, available as a spare online, and these are coupled through the tender's drawbar and through the locos to be screwed in. This closes up the gap nicely without making it impossible for the models to go round corners.

The other B1 being worked on, Addax, was also shown in the same book with a very nice combination of BR numbering and full LNER livery. I repeated the process for this model, with the one additional being the smokebox numberplate fixed in the normal position. This will need repainting as the brass numeral effect isn't accurate. 

The nameplates and numberplate for Addax came from Modelmasters and though I dislike the brass effect on the smokebox door am ultimately happy with the shape and style of both. The comparison between Fox Transfers and Modelmaster etched plates is interesting. I can't say that I have a particular preference but it'll be Fox from now on as they have a better selection of the B1 names available at present. 

So here then are two variations on the same theme made that look similar and have similar detailing but ultimately are different and individual. 

Springbok, Steinbok and Addax will be joined by a few more in due course no doubt. For the moment, an older split chassis apple green B1 Sir William Gray keeps them company, making a quartet of named apple green B1s for my work in progress layout.

When finished, the three deers will be weathered and coaled and with crews fitted, and will no doubt enjoy a mixed bag of work on the layout. I am already imagining a few different freight and passenger formations they could be seen on.

Ultimately for me, the LNER has always been about Thompson's plucky B1s. Although only an LNER liveried locomotive class for around 6 years, they epitomise the post-war LNER rather well and they are - one must admit - very handsome machines.

Many say it's Thompson's only design memorial, both in actuality and in quality. I don't believe the latter myself, but one cannot argue with the fact that it's the engine Thompson is best known for. 

And when all is said and done, it's the locomotive the LNER needed - and got.

"Empire of India"

I just thought I'd share a few pictures of a project I have been working on, the London & North Eastern Railway's no.11 Empire of India. I sold my original Empire of India a few years ago and really regretted it.

Of course, this one was made in a completely different fashion to my current A4s, and I've turned the clock back on the livery chosen for my model, which will have the 1946-48 LNER stainless steel lettering and numerals fitted instead.

At the end of this month there'll big the now usual big update regarding my modelling for the month, but I just wanted to share a few pictures to garner some feedback on the garter blue livery.

You will remember that I have been formulating my own paint and methods of painting my models. Well, I think I've finally cracked it with this model, which requires a Tamiya light blue being applied onto grey primer, followed by my latest reformulated (and a bit expensive now!) garter blue shade.

And yes - the tender is the wrong type (it should be a 1928 corridor tender) but rest assured, no.11's tender is in hand (and currently drying after painting. This tender will be going behind no.8 Dwight D Eisenhower).

I'll go through the full build in some detail on the 30 June 2015.

Until next time!

"No.4480 Enterprise"

A quick recap needed on the building of my Gresley Pacific fleet, given I've actually finished one of them now!

So we start with one of Hornby's newest Railroad Flying Scotsman models.

Then some modelling happens...!

Essentially the cabs, washout plugs, cylinder blocks, smokebox doors and chimneys are replaced, and smokebox superheater headers and sometimes domes are added. The domes and superheater headers can be bought from Graeme King on the LNER Encyclopaedia Forum, whereas the chimneys are spares bought from Hornby many years ago. The smokebox doors are my own resin casts of the super detail Hornby A3 smokebox door. The cylinder blocks were cheap lined out spares from eBay.

The cab replacement method can be seen best here. The front loco has the replacement cab with the shorter cut out fitted, and the one behind has the original cab with the side sheets extended. Fitting the replacement cab requires cutting the original one off, filing down the top of the boiler backhead a little bit, and several rubber bands and slow drying super glue.

Truth be told, replacing the cab altogether gives a much better, more accurate finish, as the addition to the cab side sheets doesn't hide the fact the sides don't curve in as they should do. Plus, the replacement cabs (from the cheap Great British Locomotives magazine models) have full cab glazing - very useful!

The reason for replacing the cab is simple: this gives the cab type accurate for 1946-9 era Gresley A3s, as well as the right hand drive detail that I need for all of my A3s (except for Humorist, which as you can see above was actually converted from right to left hand drive in addition to all of the detail differences added including the stovepipe double chimney.).

The modifications also include adding lamp irons, handrails, couplings, vacuum pipes, smokebox door darts and white metal buffers, and cylinder drain pipes too. The white metal buffers

The chassis gets either a repaint of the wheels, or replacement with lined Hornby alternatives and a new front bogie in many cases.

Well, I finally managed to finish one - no.4480 Enterprise. The paint is just a standard Plasticote gloss black paint, bought from B&Q.

She looks very glossy here compared to the unmodified Railroad model behind.

Very, very glossy in fact! Note that although a lot of the detail is moulded on, it does look superior to older Hornby Gresley A3 models if not quite as refined as the super detail model.

The comparison between the two models - as bought and as modified - couldn't be more marked.

Enterprise received some light weathering and some lamp irons and lamps, in addition to some real coal in the tender. The weathering was mostly brushed on with some powders, and a light touch with a fine brush on the smokebox and around the front and on the tender. Games workshops' Purity Seal spray was used to seal everything in.

Toning down the shiny paint has still left something of a metallic look to the boiler, which I like.

Although annoyingly NONE of my transfers appear to be on straight. They looked it when I put them one, and they look it in real life. New glasses needed...?

Aside from the transfers problem (which I'll deal with in due course), I've really enjoyed turning a budget model into something more accurate. It was great fun, cost me a lot less to do than buying the top detail model from Hornby, and I've another seven to do to complete my fleet. The chassis of the Railroad model is a lovely smooth runner, and the flywheel drive is excellent. The diecast cartazzi and extra weight really add to the haulage stakes too, making it better in my view than the super detail alternative if you feel like putting some effort into your modelling.

Picking the wartime livery for 4480 wasn't entirely a cop out though, as I intend for four of my fleet to be apple green, and four of them to be wartime black. 

This way I have a variety of tender and boiler types and combinations and liveries ranging from NE Black to LNER apple green and British Railways on the tender. Lots of interest for the impending model railway!

Until next time.